I think it's a fair review. The E-M5ii is probably the best u43 camera about (give or take the E-M1) and the u43 system is certainly the most complete mirrorless system in the market (by quite a margin). So, does that make it the best mirrorless camera available? I think for anyone who wants to build a system, then the answer is yes. Neither Sony nor Samsung are anywhere near and Fuji glass is still looking expensive, bulky and lacking good long fast lenses.

However, if you're looking for a camera in isolation, then the AF and IQ on the Samsung and Sony a6000 are certainly likely to give the E-M5ii a very strong run for its money.

I think Oly will need to give the E-M1ii a big step up in AF performance and probably a lift in sensor resolution and noise to remain truly competitive.

One thing struck me: they found that the high-resolution mode out-resolves the O45/1.8 lens, and they had to change over to the Nocticron for the resolution tests. And they were using 40 MP JPEGs, I think. This raises the question: maybe we need a 'league table' of lenses that out-resolve hi-res mode.

Also surprised to see them say the AF tracking is "really very impressive". I didn't expect to read that about an m43.

Well, I think their overall conclusion is fair, although I really don't understand this constant harping about menu complexity; and it's paradoxical to conclude that IQ is "very good", but then complain of "low resolution" (and personally, I think 16Mp is enough for nearly all advanced amateur use).

However, I do think that Oly need to look at AF performance and a sensor uplift when it comes time to release the E-m1's successor.

I believe that this technique could be superior. One reason is because of the resolving power of current lenses. I've been reading s lot about the quality of lenses since rejoining the hobby, so take this with a big grain of salt because I'm a neophyte...but, I've read and watched some tests that discussed the resolution delivered by some high-end lenses and none could deliver resolution equal to the high end sensors they were attached to. So if the best lenses produce 20meg or less of resolution detail, what good is a bigger sensor. That makes it believable to me, in my "know enough to be dangerous" state of naivety, that multiple passes on a single sensor to make a composite image could exceed the sum of its parts.

Can't wait to hear more and more about it. No question all of the available arrows are more capable than this Indian, but it's interesting.

The body of the review is eminently sensible -- then the conclusion is blatantly stupid.

Here's what DPR do wrong. The body of a review is the place to pixel peep and go into detail about features and ultimate limits of capabilities, comparison with other cameras, etc. They do that fine. But the conclusion is then where you need to put aside the pixel-peeping ultra-analysis and discuss the final print quality, the user experience, the satisfaction one gets from using it and viewing final images at final size.

Instead, DPR completely muck it up by weighting their conclusions page with whether they think any competitors are better at pixel level, or at number of pixels. Stop trying to guess how well it competes at the counter and on the spec sheet, and awarding gold or silver on that basis. LET THE MARKET DECIDE THAT. That's not your business, DPR. In fact, if you are going to rate cameras based on what the market will think of them against the competition, then you are going to have to rate every Canon, Nikon and Leica highest because of the name on the plate and what that means to buyers, and every Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji and Pentax lower for the very same reason. Do you really want to do that? I THOUGHT NOT.

Then there's the blatant DPR bias. Always remember how biased they are. I checked the Canon 7D II review, and guess what? NO MENTION in the Cons under Conclusions about "Low resolution by contemporary standards". None, nada, zip, nothing. And yet its 20 MP resolution is almost indistinguishable from the 16 MP of the M5-II.

Oh, but maybe it's a one-off? So I checked the 5D III review, and guess what? NO MENTION in the Cons under Conclusions about "Low resolution by contemporary standards". None, nada, zip, nothing. And yet its 22 MP resolution is seriously deficient against the 36 MP Nikon competitor. Yet the 5D III still gets Gold. Yet this is a camera that truly offers nothing new, only marginal evolutions, and is blatantly out-sensored by the competition. But it gets Gold, Gold, Gold.

I found this comment on IBIS rather intriguing i.e. IBIS is more effective for longer focal lengths? I had never really thought about it that much but I suppose it makes a bit of sense. I think what they are alluding to is there is a lower limit shutter speed for each FL below which IBIS is not effective (or not very effective). So anything below this lower limit the image is not stabilised. I think they are saying this limit is effectively greater the longer the FL. The FL must impact as long FLs produce more camera movement.

"Finally, and most impressively, at 200mm equivalent, it's almost impossible to get steady shots at 1/25th of a second (this is with IBIS off) (3EV below 1/effective focal length), and yet it was almost impossible not to get a steady shot with stabilization turned on. These results are broadly consistent with our assumption that with short focal lengths, exposure times can become so long that the stabilization system can't possible compensate for user movement, while with longer focal lengths, the IS system is extremely effective much further below 1/eFL."

Nice review, quite thorough and accurate I feel. I don't personally care about any perceived vendor or system bias in the final "grade"; I think they should do away with those rankings anyway. They are entirely subjective and inappropriate because they instill a value in the product that may not exist for all shooters. Everyone has different priorities, and it's impossible to make an apples-to-apples comparison between different cameras simply on its award rating. The Pro's/Con's lists and Final Thoughts are much more valuable to me

Link
One thing struck me: they found that the high-resolution mode out-resolves the O45/1.8 lens, and they had to change over to the Nocticron for the resolution tests. And they were using 40 MP JPEGs, I think. This raises the question: maybe we need a 'league table' of lenses that out-resolve hi-res mode.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I noticed that bit too... but I don't get it. The way Oly's High Res mode works means 8 consecutive 16MP shots that are sensor-shifted 1px and stitched. At no point does the lens have to resolve more than 16MP. So I don't see how any lens would perform worse in HR mode than in normal mode. Of course, the Nocticon is just plain sharper than the O45, but that doesn't mean the O45 isn't capable of sufficient resolution for HR mode.

Nice review, quite thorough and accurate I feel. I don't personally care about any perceived vendor or system bias in the final "grade"; I think they should do away with those rankings anyway. They are entirely subjective and inappropriate because they instill a value in the product that may not exist for all shooters. Everyone has different priorities, and it's impossible to make an apples-to-apples comparison between different cameras simply on its award rating. The Pro's/Con's lists and Final Thoughts are much more valuable to me

Yeah, I noticed that bit too... but I don't get it. The way Oly's High Res mode works means 8 consecutive 16MP shots that are sensor-shifted 1px and stitched. At no point does the lens have to resolve more than 16MP. So I don't see how any lens would perform worse in HR mode than in normal mode. Of course, the Nocticon is just plain sharper than the O45, but that doesn't mean the O45 isn't capable of sufficient resolution for HR mode.

I'm open to correction if I'm seeing this the wrong way... anyone?

Click to expand...

The sharpness (or more correctly, acuity) of a lens is the number of individual line pairs per mm it can resolve. If this is greater than the number of line pairs that will fit without smearing over several pixels, then the lens out-resolves the sensor. If not, then the sensor out-resolves the lens. It's perfectly reasonable for a lens to out-resolve a 16Mp sensor, but not a 40Mp one.

Yeah, I noticed that bit too... but I don't get it. The way Oly's High Res mode works means 8 consecutive 16MP shots that are sensor-shifted 1px and stitched. At no point does the lens have to resolve more than 16MP.

Click to expand...

The lens is just projecting an image onto whatever is behind it. It could be a peice of paper, film, a sensor, your hand, whatever. That projected image has a fixed amount of detail and sharpness. It has no bearing on the method used to record that detail. The final output is going to depend on both the quality of the projected image and the quality of the recording method.

As for the 16MP comment, if the sensor shifts over 1px and can't properly tell the difference between that pixel and the one next to it due to lens blur, then it can't generate additional detail. An extreme example would be that a defocused lens is going to have no more detail at 500MP than at 1MP. It's just going to be blurry.

As for the 16MP comment, if the sensor shifts over 1px and can't properly tell the difference between that pixel and the one next to it due to lens blur, then it can't generate additional detail. An extreme example would be that a defocused lens is going to have no more detail at 500MP than at 1MP. It's just going to be blurry.

Click to expand...

OK, I think this helps me understand what you guys are trying to say. It doesn't seem intuitive though. I keep thinking "How is this different than comping a super high res image with any camera by taking a dozen images and stitching them together"? That's an old practice, for instance, to create high-resolution digital copies of photo prints. You could make a million MP image this way if you wanted, if you merged enough images. The lens would not be a limiting factor in any way regardless of the size...

But what you said about the 1px difference being discernible makes sense. Just backwards of the way I was thinking of it. I think....... Sorry, I'm a bit dense

Well, I think their overall conclusion is fair, although I really don't understand this constant harping about menu complexity. . .

Click to expand...

I understand the constant harping about menu complexity, and the harping should continue until Olympus finally get the message and straighten it out. Other cameras from other companies don't have this extensive labyrinth of confusingly named menu options hidden away inside confusingly named categories, where it takes a week of study (and repeated aid from Google) to get your camera configured, and it sometimes takes five minutes to find an option that I already know is in there somewhere.

I also am disappointed by the articulated swivel screen. It seems awkward to me. Although, at least you can turn it inward to protect it from knocks. I've already fractured the screen on my E-M5 twice. I do think a better solution would have been to simply put a plastic rim or rubber bumper around the edge, though. Particularly at the bottom edge, that seems to be the vulnerable spot.